Question 1

When are conjoint results more convincing than sales team's pricing instincts?

Accepted Answer

Conjoint analysis results become more convincing than the sales team's gut instincts when you need objective, customer-backed evidence to settle pricing debates. Sales instincts are valuable, but they often come from a handful of big deals or personal impressions, whereas a well-run conjoint study quantifies preferences across a broad market sample. If conjoint data shows, for example, that customers are willing to pay a premium for certain features (or that a mid-priced bundle is optimal), you can use those numbers to challenge or confirm a sales team's hunch in a concrete way. It's especially powerful in situations where instincts conflict or stakes are high - like launching a new product or entering a new segment - because conjoint provides a simulation of market choices rather than anecdotes. By illustrating trade-offs (perhaps revealing that customers would drop an ancillary service to get a lower price, contrary to what sales assumed), the conjoint results give a fact-based narrative that can sway skeptics.

Question 2

How do we increase two-way feedback after town halls or public opinion surveys?

Accepted Answer

Increasing two-way feedback after a town hall or public opinion survey starts with closing the loop — showing people their input was heard and inviting ongoing dialogue. Right after the event or survey, share a summary of the key points raised and any actions the organization will take; this transparency signals that feedback matters. Then provide channels for continued discussion, such as follow-up Q&A sessions, an online community forum, or interactive polls to gather reactions on the changes being made. The process should be iterative: for example, if a policy is adjusted based on public input, report that update back to participants and ask for their thoughts on it. By actively responding and asking for more input, you transform a one-time town hall or survey into an ongoing conversation, which strengthens trust and engagement.

Question 3

Is an RCT always the gold standard for public programs?

Accepted Answer

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often considered the gold standard for evaluating public programs because they can show cause and effect clearly, but they are not always feasible or appropriate. In real-world public interventions, strict random assignment may be unethical, too costly, or impractical — if an initiative must serve an entire community or it's urgent, you can't withhold the program from a control group just to run an RCT. For example, a city-wide education reform or disaster relief effort can't randomly exclude some residents; instead, evaluators might use quasi-experimental methods like matched comparisons or pre-post studies to assess impact. In essence, an RCT is ideal when conditions allow, but many public sector evaluations rely on alternative rigorous designs to get credible results when an RCT isn't possible.

Question 4

What's the most effective way to curb low-effort or copy-paste responses online?

Accepted Answer

The most effective way to curb low-effort or copy-paste responses in online research is to address both motivation and detection: design the study so respondents feel engaged (reducing the urge to cheat) and implement checks that catch junk answers before they pollute your data. On the design side, keep surveys or tasks concise and relevant, and ask clear, thought-provoking open-ends ("In your own words, why...") that make it obvious a generic pasted answer won't cut it. You can also communicate that quality matters - for example, telling participants their responses will be checked for originality can deter lazy inputs. On the detection side, use technology and QA to your advantage: time-stamp analysis can flag answers entered suspiciously fast, plagiarism scanners or even simple Google searches can spot copied text, and trap questions (like very easy questions or instructed-response items) can identify who's not paying attention. By combining these approaches, you create an environment where genuine respondents find it easy and worthwhile to answer properly, while low-effort cheats are either discouraged up front or filtered out before analysis.

Question 5

How affordable is ethnography now, and which choices move the budget most?

Accepted Answer

Ethnographic research is far more affordable now than it used to be, thanks to digital tools and careful study design, but certain choices — like doing in-person fieldwork versus remote observation — still swing the budget in a big way. For example, using mobile ethnography apps or video calls to observe people in their homes can capture the same insights without the cost of flying researchers on-site, saving huge travel and logistics expenses. Likewise, limiting the scope of the study — fewer participants or shorter observation periods — can extract the key learnings without the price tag of an open-ended project. The biggest cost drivers tend to be how many people you include, how many locations you cover, and how intensive the data collection is. Each additional participant or city adds up, and methods like hiring a full camera crew and producing high-end videos will cost more than having participants self-record with their smartphones. By leveraging remote technology, right-sizing your sample, and focusing on the most critical behaviors to observe, companies are finding that ethnography can fit into modest budgets, reserving higher spend only for truly pivotal deep dives.

FGA Research™

What is FGA Research™?

Services and Expertise